Obama Vows New Push to Close Guantanamo

The Real

Anti-Ignorance
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
6,352
Reputation
725
Daps
10,729
Reppin
NYC
http://preview.reuters.com/2013/4/30/obama-vows-new-push-to-close-guantanamo-detention

By Matt Spetalnick

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saying it was damaging to U.S. interests to keep holding prisoners in legal limbo at Guantanamo, President Barack Obama renewed an old vow on Tuesday to close the camp, where about 100 inmates are on hunger strike to protest against their years in detention without trial.

Human rights groups welcomed Obama's recommitment to shutting the prison. But some activists called for action, not just words, and said the president could take some steps on his own without hitting congressional obstacles.

"It's not sustainable - I mean, the notion that we're going to continue to keep over 100 individuals in a no-man's land in perpetuity," Obama said.

Obama lamented the status quo, which has kept most prisoners in detention without trial or charge since the prison was set up at the U.S. Naval Base on Cuba in 2002 to hold foreign terrorism suspects.

A renewed effort to close the camp would mean finding a series of solutions - some of which would likely come up against the same congressional opposition they faced in the past given lawmakers' reluctance to have inmates transferred to the United States.

Obama, who repeatedly pledged to close the camp when he was campaigning for a first term and after he first took office in 2009, put the blame on Congress for his failure to make good on his promise and said he would re-engage with lawmakers on the issue.

While Obama acknowledged an uphill fight and provided few specifics on how to overcome legal and political obstacles, White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden later said he was weighing a range of options aimed at reducing the number of inmates and moving toward "ultimate closure."

She said Obama could implement some measures on his own, including naming a new senior State Department officer to refocus on repatriating detainees or transferring them to third countries, a process that has ground to a halt. That post has been vacant since January.

"We will also work to fully implement the Periodic Review Board process, which we acknowledge has not moved forward quickly enough," she said. This is a system of parole-style hearings the Obama administration set up but which have left many inmates frustrated over the slow handling of their cases.

Obama's comments were his first public remarks about Guantanamo since the hunger strike began in early February. Military officials have attributed the protest in part to a sense of hopelessness among detainees over their open-ended detention.

Long a subject of international condemnation but low on the list of the American public's policy concerns, Guantanamo has been thrust back in the spotlight by the hunger strike and the military's decision to force-feed prisoners to keep them alive.

The U.S. military has said 21 prisoners are being force-fed liquid meals through tubes inserted in their noses. Forty medical personnel have been sent to reinforce the military's existing teams at Guantanamo to deal with the hunger strike.

VIOLATION OF MEDICAL ETHICS

Some inmates have given harrowing accounts of force-feeding, and the practice has been criticized by rights groups and also by the American Medical Association.

On Thursday, the president of the AMA sent a letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reiterating the association's position that it is a violation of medical ethics to force-feed mentally competent adults who refuse food and life-saving treatment.

Asked about the force-feeding, Obama defended it, saying "I don't want these individuals to die."

On the hunger strike, he said it was "not a surprise to me that we've got problems in Guantanamo."

"Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe," he said. "It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed."

Obama said he had asked his advisers to "examine every option that we have administratively" to deal with Guantanamo. It was unclear whether that meant Obama might use executive powers that some legal experts say he has to transfer some detainees.

U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, backed Obama's effort. "The deteriorating situation at Guantanamo, including the ongoing and expanding hunger strikes by prisoners ... is disturbing and unacceptable," he said.

But Howard McKeon, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said: "The president faces bipartisan opposition to closing Guantanamo Bay's detention center because he has offered no alternative plan regarding the detainees there, nor a plan for future terrorist captures."

Obama has approved military tribunals to try some of the most dangerous suspects, but only nine of the current prisoners have been charged or convicted of crimes. Of the other inmates, 86 have been cleared for transfer or release, 47 are considered too dangerous to release but are not facing prosecution and 24 are considered eligible for possible prosecution.

U.S. lawmakers, mostly Republicans but including some Democrats, have blocked Obama from transferring Guantanamo prisoners to American jails, saying they would pose a security risk if housed in the United States.

The U.S. government will not send some prisoners back to their homelands because of instability or concerns over mistreatment. Most countries are reluctant to accept them for resettlement when the United States itself will not take them.

Obama said ultimately he would need approval from Congress to shutter the facility and acknowledged that would be an uphill struggle, saying, "It's easy to demagogue the issue."

"WAIVER PROCESS"

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has long campaigned to close Guantanamo, said: "We praise the president for reaffirming his commitment to closing the base but take issue with the impression he strives to give that it is largely up to Congress."

It said that if Obama were "really serious" about closing the camp, he could use a "waiver process" to transfer detainees, starting with the 86 men who have already been cleared for release, lift the moratorium on transfers to Yemen and appoint a senior administration official to shepherd the closure.

The United States has not sent prisoners back to Yemen, where 56 of those eligible for release are from, since a foiled plot in 2010 to bomb an American passenger aircraft was hatched my militants in Yemen.

The Guantanamo camp was opened by Republican President George W. Bush, to hold foreign terrorism suspects captured overseas after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.

Obama failed to meet his promise to close the prison within a year of taking office in early 2009 and it has become an enduring symbol of widely condemned U.S. interrogation and detention practices during the Bush era.

An independent U.S. task force issued a report on April 16 calling indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo "abhorrent and intolerable." It called for the camp to be closed by the end of 2014 when NATO's combat mission in Afghanistan is due to end and most U.S. troops will leave the country.

The U.S. military on Monday counted 100 prisoners as hunger strikers. Five of those being force-fed have been hospitalized for observation but did not have life-threatening conditions, a spokesman for the detention camp, Army Lieutenant Colonel Samuel House, said on Tuesday.

Hunger strikes have occurred at Guantanamo since soon after it opened. The current protest began in early February, after guards seized photos and other belongings during a cell search. Prisoners said the guards had mistreated their Korans during the search. The U.S. military has denied that.

(Additional reporting by Jane Sutton in Miami.; Editing by Frances Kerry, Christopher Wilson and Lisa Shumaker)
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
What good is closing Gitmo if the indefinite detention continues?

Obama always tries to act like he's a powerless observer to all of this. Sure, he might have backlash in closing Gitmo, but what is stopping him from ordering the Military and/or Justice Department from charging these people with crimes and giving them a god damn trial? Keep Gitmo open for all I care, just give people their god damn right to prove their innocence and confront the evidence against them in a courtroom.

I don't need to remind most of you the Obama's Administration stances on indefinite detention, do I?
 

88m3

Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
92,737
Reputation
3,872
Daps
165,569
Reppin
Brooklyn
I'd rather he didn't, it's just going to be the same result.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,932
Reputation
5,397
Daps
72,385
What good is closing Gitmo if the indefinite detention continues?

Obama always tries to act like he's a powerless observer to all of this. Sure, he might have backlash in closing Gitmo, but what is stopping him from ordering the Military and/or Justice Department from charging these people with crimes and giving them a god damn trial? Keep Gitmo open for all I care, just give people their god damn right to prove their innocence and confront the evidence against them in a courtroom.

I don't need to remind most of you the Obama's Administration stances on indefinite detention, do I?

You sound so ignorant right now it's remarkable. At Gitmo all you get is military trials, he pushed for getting tried in federal courts and in US prisons, which Congress shot down. Essentially, Congress made it so these people cannot be housed in domestic prisons so there's nowhere to send them. What, you want to give them a trial on US soil (which Senators pushed back against and the public got all cowardly about) and then send them back to Gitmo.

Another day in TUH's world of let the executive branch magically do everything while simultaneously ranting against the increases in executive power. :smh:
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans


You sound so ignorant right now it's remarkable. At Gitmo all you get is military trials, he pushed for getting tried in federal courts and in US prisons, which Congress shot down. Essentially, Congress made it so these people cannot be housed in domestic prisons so there's nowhere to send them. What, you want to give them a trial on US soil (which Senators pushed back against and the public got all cowardly about) and then send them back to Gitmo.

Another day in TUH's world of let the executive branch magically do everything while simultaneously ranting against the increases in executive power. :smh:

What's to stop them from CHARGING them, or giving them a formal trial on US SOIL in Gitmo (It's US land)?

What is stopping the Obama Adminstration from doing that? It falls directly under the powers of the Executive Branch, the DOD and the Justice Department .
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
2 months ago:

Obama administration lawyers defended the military's indefinite detention powers in Manhattan federal court on Wednesday, claiming civil liberties advocates shouldn't worry about their rights being violated under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

But a lawyer for the government's opponents, Bruce Afran, spoke out against the "dictatorial" power of indefinite detention under the law, saying at a press conference after the hearing that "if this power is upheld, it means that Americans can be subject to military imprisonment."

The NDAA allows the military to indefinitely detain anyone who "substantially supported" al Qaeda or its allies. At issue during the Wednesday hearing was whether US citizens are included under that definition -- and what exactly it means to "substantially" support al Qaeda. Three judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals peppered both sides with questions during the oral arguments, but seemed reluctant to wade into the constitutional issues that civil liberties advocates have raised.

The plaintiffs in the case, who include former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges and Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, argue that the standards by which the government may detain al Qaeda supporters under the NDAA are so vague that journalists and others reasonably fear detention merely because they have been in contact with terrorists.

U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with them in September, striking down the indefinite detention language as an unconstitutional affront to First Amendment free speech rights. Government lawyers quickly made an emergency appeal of the ruling, charging that it threatened "irreparable harm to national security." The Second Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the decision and ordered the Thursday hearing to be held.

Inside the packed courtroom, U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Robert Loeb went on the offensive against Forrest's ruling, claiming that it was based on "a fundamentally flawed reading of the law." Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, he said, had no reason to fear for their rights because "this statute simply does not apply to them."

Loeb pointed to a section of the law that claims it does nothing to change the detention rules for people captured in the U.S. under the 2001 authorization for the use of military force against al Qaeda. Hedges and his co-plaintiffs have not challenged that underlying law.

That subsection "expressly exempts our citizens," Loeb claimed. But Judge Raymond Lohier seemed skeptical, saying the subsection "doesn't exempt anything" since it claimed not to change the law.

Lohier and his fellow jurists were nevertheless no easier on the plaintiffs in the case. Lohier said they were "obliged" to avoid difficult constitutional problems when it was possible to dismiss cases based on standing, and suggested he would rather not decide a case based on "ambiguous inferences" made from the section supposedly exempting citizens.

In an unusual move, Carl Mayer, an attorney for the plaintiffs, "dedicated" his arguments to the descendents of Fred Korematsu and other Japanese-Americans who were detained during World War II. The lessons from their experience, combined with the NDAA's language about indefinite detention, he said, were enough to give his clients pause before expressing their free speech rights. Mayer highlighted in particular the government's failure at trial to simply state that Hedges and others could not be detained under the NDAA.

The Obama administration's lawyer, Loeb, said he could not give the plaintiffs "carte blanche." But he noted that it was "quite telling" no one had been held for acts of independent journalism during the more than ten years since Sept. 11.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/ndaa-indefinite-detention-lawsuit_n_2632254.html
 

Type Username Here

Not a new member
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
16,368
Reputation
2,400
Daps
32,646
Reppin
humans
Glenn Greenwald ‏@ggreenwald 7h
Obama's plan was classic Obama: get rid of the ugly/unpleasant symbol (the Gitmo camp) while keeping its core power (indefinite detention)


[ame]https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/329320768779476992[/ame]
 

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
32,632
Reputation
2,755
Daps
45,414
FTA

Obama has approved military tribunals to try some of the most dangerous suspects, but only nine of the current prisoners have been charged or convicted of crimes. Of the other inmates, 86 have been cleared for transfer or release, 47 are considered too dangerous to release but are not facing prosecution and 24 are considered eligible for possible prosecution.

U.S. lawmakers, mostly Republicans but including some Democrats, have blocked Obama from transferring Guantanamo prisoners to American jails, saying they would pose a security risk if housed in the United States.

The U.S. government will not send some prisoners back to their homelands because of instability or concerns over mistreatment. Most countries are reluctant to accept them for resettlement when the United States itself will not take them.
 

No1

Retired.
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,932
Reputation
5,397
Daps
72,385

You're rambling with various links and semi-misapplying the law, but I'll leave it alone. I specifically spoke on the troubles with closing Gitmo, indefinite detention in and of itself is a much larger subject which we can address in a separate thread, and we can criticize much of the world on it. He and Hagel will certainly transfer out the people slated to be transferred out prior to the 2009 incident. Per the policy he instituted the status of individuals is reviewed every 3 years to determine if they're still a threat. Those guys, especially the Yemen guys, will go home. As for the remaining people, they should be charged. I don't think there's any question about that.

Initially, the Obama administration halted military tribunals for those people as they attempted to plan for civilian trials on US soil as part of a greater plan to close Guantanomo Bay (yeah, it seems sort of counter-intuitive in certain ways, but that was part of the plan...though the attorney hired to do just that was fired after his first year in the administration, but that's another story..and no one wants my DC story time). But after Congress placed a ban on trying these people in US federal courts he lifted his ban and restarted military tribunals or at least gave the green light to restart them in 2011. That's when I graduated from college and stopped paying attention. Now, if these charges have not been brought up and none of these people haven't been tried at all since then, then that's very damning and leads me to believe politics got in the way.

But I have no access to that information.
 

Jello Biafra

A true friend stabs you in the front
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
46,184
Reputation
4,958
Daps
120,919
Reppin
Behind You


You're rambling with various links and semi-misapplying the law, but I'll leave it alone. I specifically spoke on the troubles with closing Gitmo, indefinite detention in and of itself is a much larger subject which we can address in a separate thread, and we can criticize much of the world on it. He and Hagel will certainly transfer out the people slated to be transferred out prior to the 2009 incident. Per the policy he instituted the status of individuals is reviewed every 3 years to determine if they're still a threat. Those guys, especially the Yemen guys, will go home. As for the remaining people, they should be charged. I don't think there's any question about that.

Initially, the Obama administration halted military tribunals for those people as they attempted to plan for civilian trials on US soil as part of a greater plan to close Guantanomo Bay (yeah, it seems sort of counter-intuitive in certain ways, but that was part of the plan...though the attorney hired to do just that was fired after his first year in the administration, but that's another story..and no one wants my DC story time). But after Congress placed a ban on trying these people in US federal courts he lifted his ban and restarted military tribunals or at least gave the green light to restart them in 2011. That's when I graduated from college and stopped paying attention. Now, if these charges have not been brought up and none of these people haven't been tried at all since then, then that's very damning and leads me to believe politics got in the way.

But I have no access to that information.

According to Human Rights Watch, of the 166 detainess still at Gitmo only 6 of them have been formally charged since Congress blocked the trials in US federal courts.
 

daze23

Siempre Fresco
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
32,632
Reputation
2,755
Daps
45,414
According to Human Rights Watch, of the 166 detainess still at Gitmo only 6 of them have been formally charged since Congress blocked the trials in US federal courts.

FTA

Obama has approved military tribunals to try some of the most dangerous suspects, but only nine of the current prisoners have been charged or convicted of crimes. Of the other inmates, 86 have been cleared for transfer or release, 47 are considered too dangerous to release but are not facing prosecution and 24 are considered eligible for possible prosecution.

U.S. lawmakers, mostly Republicans but including some Democrats, have blocked Obama from transferring Guantanamo prisoners to American jails, saying they would pose a security risk if housed in the United States.

The U.S. government will not send some prisoners back to their homelands because of instability or concerns over mistreatment. Most countries are reluctant to accept them for resettlement when the United States itself will not take them.
 
Top